Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Cyber Combat

Cyber Combat: Act of War
Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage With Military Force
By SIOBHAN GORMAN And JULIAN E. BARNES





WASHINGTON—The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.


The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military.


The report will also spark a debate over a range of sensitive issues the Pentagon left unaddressed, including whether the U.S. can ever be certain about an attack's origin, and how to define when computer sabotage is serious enough to constitute an act of war. These questions have already been a topic of dispute within the military.


One idea gaining momentum at the Pentagon is the notion of "equivalence." If a cyber attack produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a "use of force" consideration, which could merit retaliation.


The Pentagon's document runs about 30 pages in its classified version and 12 pages in the unclassified one. It concludes that the Laws of Armed Conflict—derived from various treaties and customs that, over the years, have come to guide the conduct of war and proportionality of response—apply in cyberspace as in traditional warfare, according to three defense officials who have read the document. The document goes on to describe the Defense Department's dependence on information technology and why it must forge partnerships with other nations and private industry to protect infrastructure.


The strategy will also state the importance of synchronizing U.S. cyber-war doctrine with that of its allies, and will set out principles for new security policies. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization took an initial step last year when it decided that, in the event of a cyber attack on an ally, it would convene a group to "consult together" on the attacks, but they wouldn't be required to help each other respond. The group hasn't yet met to confer on a cyber incident.


Pentagon officials believe the most-sophisticated computer attacks require the resources of a government. For instance, the weapons used in a major technological assault, such as taking down a power grid, would likely have been developed with state support, Pentagon officials say.


The move to formalize the Pentagon's thinking was borne of the military's realization the U.S. has been slow to build up defenses against these kinds of attacks, even as civilian and military infrastructure has grown more dependent on the Internet. The military established a new command last year, headed by the director of the National Security Agency, to consolidate military network security and attack efforts.

The Pentagon itself was rattled by the 2008 attack, a breach significant enough that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs briefed then-President George W. Bush. At the time, Pentagon officials said they believed the attack originated in Russia, although didn't say whether they believed the attacks were connected to the government. Russia has denied involvement.


The Rules of Armed Conflict that guide traditional wars are derived from a series of international treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, as well as practices that the U.S. and other nations consider customary international law. But cyber warfare isn't covered by existing treaties. So military officials say they want to seek a consensus among allies about how to proceed.


"Act of war" is a political phrase, not a legal term, said Charles Dunlap, a retired Air Force Major General and professor at Duke University law school. Gen. Dunlap argues cyber attacks that have a violent effect are the legal equivalent of armed attacks, or what the military calls a "use of force."


"A cyber attack is governed by basically the same rules as any other kind of attack if the effects of it are essentially the same," Gen. Dunlap said Monday. The U.S. would need to show that the cyber weapon used had an effect that was the equivalent of a conventional attack.


James Lewis, a computer-security specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who has advised the Obama administration, said Pentagon officials are currently figuring out what kind of cyber attack would constitute a use of force. Many military planners believe the trigger for retaliation should be the amount of damage—actual or attempted—caused by the attack.


For instance, if computer sabotage shut down as much commerce as would a naval blockade, it could be considered an act of war that justifies retaliation, Mr. Lewis said. Gauges would include "death, damage, destruction or a high level of disruption" he said.


Culpability, military planners argue in internal Pentagon debates, depends on the degree to which the attack, or the weapons themselves, can be linked to a foreign government. That's a tricky prospect at the best of times.


The brief 2008 war between Russia and Georgia included a cyber attack that disrupted the websites of Georgian government agencies and financial institutions. The damage wasn't permanent but did disrupt communication early in the war.


A subsequent NATO study said it was too hard to apply the laws of armed conflict to that cyber attack because both the perpetrator and impact were unclear. At the time, Georgia blamed its neighbor, Russia, which denied any involvement.


Much also remains unknown about one of the best-known cyber weapons, the Stuxnet computer virus that sabotaged some of Iran's nuclear centrifuges. While some experts suspect it was an Israeli attack, because of coding characteristics, possibly with American assistance, that hasn't been proven. Iran was the location of only 60% of the infections, according to a study by the computer security firm Symantec. Other locations included Indonesia, India, Pakistan and the U.S.


Officials from Israel and the U.S. have declined to comment on the allegations.


Defense officials refuse to discuss potential cyber adversaries, although military and intelligence officials say they have identified previous attacks originating in Russia and China. A 2009 government-sponsored report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said that China's People's Liberation Army has its own computer warriors, the equivalent of the American National Security Agency.


That's why military planners believe the best way to deter major attacks is to hold countries that build cyber weapons responsible for their use. A parallel, outside experts say, is the George W. Bush administration's policy of holding foreign governments accountable for harboring terrorist organizations, a policy that led to the U.S. military campaign to oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.




Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Chantix Suicides

Image representing Pfizer as depicted in Crunc...
High suicide rates related to anti-smoking drug Chantix were 'left out of crucial safety review'


Hundreds of reports of suicides and violent reactions tied to the stop-smoking drug Chantix were left out of a crucial government safety review.

The reports were missing because the drug’s manufacturer Pfizer Inc. submitted years of data through 'improper channels', according to the Food and Drug Administration.

Serious problems — such as people killing themselves, trying to kill themselves, depression and unprovoked attacks on others — were mixed among 26,000 records of non-serious side effects such as nausea and rashes dating back to 2006, the year Chantix, or varenicline, was approved.

Controversial chemicals: Chantix is regarded as one of the 'riskiest' drugs by some scientists

Cases of 150 suicides, more than doubling those previously known, were among 589 delayed reports of severe issues uncovered in new analysis by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP).

Thomas J Moore, the senior scientist who analysed the data for the non-profit ISMP, said: 'It’s really chilling. This seems to unleash something in people. It can be violence to anything around. We’ve had a major breakdown in safety surveillance.'

His analysis echoes previous horror stories that Chantix can induce extreme reactions in people trying to quit cigarettes, including vivid nightmares, crippling depression and violent outbursts.

Federal Food and Drug Administration officials said that they asked Pfizer to resubmit thousands of records after realising that the company was sending required reports in an inappropriate format that could not be added to the agency’s Adverse Events Reporting System, or AERS.

The agency said: 'Last year, the FDA became aware that a few manufacturers were submitting adverse events reports to FDA through improper channels.'

Pfizer officials said they were submitting reports as required and that when the FDA asked them to change, they did so immediately. But they added that there's no proof that Chantix causes suicide or other serious side effects.

Mr Moore, who has served as an expert witness in court cases related to Chantix, said it is the riskiest drug among those analysed from the FDA's adverse event reports, msnbc.com reports.

In the third quarter of 2010, it ranked first in reported deaths, with twice as many fatalities logged as any other drug, he said.

Moore, who has served as an expert witness in court regarding Chantix, said it's the riskiest drug among those analysed from the FDA's adverse event reports.

In the third quarter of 2010, it ranked first in reported deaths, with twice as many fatalities logged as any other drug, he said.

FDA officials said the new reports did not change the agency’s position on the risks and benefits of the controversial drug, which received a black box warning that included suicide — the strongest caution possible — in 2009.

Agency officials said they are continuing to review Chantix in clinical trials.

But Mr Moore said the new data should raise immediate alarms about the drug that was prescribed 3.2 million times last year to people trying to stop smoking — and 1.1 million times already this year.

He said: 'To us, it raises questions about whether this drug is safe for widespread clinical use.'

Pfizer officials said that the firm was following the FDA's rules and changed their reporting process once the agency asked for clarification.

The company said: 'All post-marketing reports of adverse events are reviewed by Pfizer and reported to regulators, including FDA, in accordance with regulatory guidelines.

'Pfizer takes patient safety and regulatory reporting obligations very seriously.'

The FDA requires drugmakers to submit adverse events in two ways.
There’s an 'expedited' system that requires companies to report serious and unexpected adverse events into the AERS system within 15 days.


Then there's the less-serious and expected adverse events to be submitted quarterly in so-called 'periodic reports.'

In those cases, problems previously included on drug labels — including suicide and suicide attempts — are considered to be expected events.

In Pfizer’s case, the firm was submitting the periodic reports as required, but combining summaries and individual case reports in a single text file, the FDA said.
That meant that the individual reports of injury were not logged in the FDA’s AERS system, drastically reducing known reports of suicides and other psychiatric problems tied to Chantix, Mr Moore said.

He said: 'It’s very clear the suicide risk of this drug was higher than we knew.'
Overall, there were 1,055 reports of serious problems with Chantix reported in the third quarter of 2010, more than any other prescription medication regularly monitored by the drug safety agency, Mr Moore added.

Before last July, the FDA had logged 122 reports of suicides linked to Chantix, including 37 reported by Pfizer and 85 reported by health professionals or consumers.

After the 150 new Pfizer reports were added, the total jumped to 272.
In addition, the 589 new reports of severe problems included 102 cases of possible hostility and aggression, 156 cases of depression and 56 cases of possible psychosis.

Those were mixed among the 26,000 reports of less-serious problems.

Mr Moore has asked the FDA to investigate the 150 new suicide reports, particularly if the events occurred before the 2009 black box warning listed suicide as a possible side effect.

FDA officials said they are considering changing regulations to allow expedited reports of suicides and other serious problems, even if they’ve previously been identified as expected.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Memorial Day

                                                                           
Memorial Day
The gravestones at Arlington National Cemetery are graced by U.S. flags on Memorial Day weekend.


Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday observed on the last Monday of May (May 30 in 2011). Formerly known as Decoration Day, it commemorates men and women who died while in military service to the United States. First enacted to honor Union and Confederate soldiers following the American Civil War it was extended after World War I to honor Americans who have died in all wars.


By 1865 the practice of decorating soldiers' graves had become widespread in the North. The first known observance was in Boalsburg, Pa on October, 1864, and each year thereafter. The friendship between General John Murray, a distinguished citizen of Waterloo, and General John A. Logan, who helped bring attention to the event nationwide, was likely a factor in the holiday's growth. On May 5, 1868, in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the Grand Army of the Republic – the organization for Northern Civil War veterans – Logan issued a proclamation that "Decoration Day" should be observed nationwide. It was observed for the first time on May 30 of the same year; the date was chosen because it was not the anniversary of a battle.


On Memorial Day the flag is raised briskly to the top of the staff and then solemnly lowered to the half-staff position, where it remains only until noon. It is then raised to full-staff for the remainder of the day.


The half-staff position remembers the more than one million men and women who gave their lives in service of their country. At noon their memory is raised by the living, who resolve not to let their sacrifice be in vain, but to rise up in their stead and continue the fight for liberty and justice for all.


There were events in 183 cemeteries in 27 states in 1868, and 336 in 1869. The northern states quickly adopted the holiday; Michigan made "Decoration Day" an official state holiday in 1871 and by 1890 every northern state followed suit. The ceremonies were sponsored by the Women's Relief Corps, which had 100,000 members. By 1870, the remains of nearly 300,000 Union dead had been buried in 73 national cemeteries, located mostly in the South, near the battlefields. The most famous are Gettysburg National Cemetery in Pennsylvania and Arlington National Cemetery, near Washington.

The Memorial Day speech became an occasion for veterans, politicians and ministers to commemorate the war – and at first to recall the atrocities of the enemy. They mixed religion and celebratory nationalism and provided a means for the people to make sense of their history in terms of sacrifice for a better nation, one closer to their God. People of all religious beliefs joined together, and the point was often made that the German and Irish soldiers had become true Americans in the "baptism of blood" on the battlefield. By the end of the 1870s the rancor was gone and the speeches praised the soldiers of both the Union and Confederacy. By the 1950s, the theme was American exceptionalism and duty to uphold freedom in the world. Ironton, Ohio lays claim to the nation's oldest continuously running Memorial Day parade, since 1868. In 1882, the name of Decoration Day was formally changed to Memorial Day in "memory" and 'honor" of those who gave their lives fighting for a common cause, America.




Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, May 27, 2011

Why Should America Waste Money on Pakistan?

The unloved US investment in Pakistan
Why Should America Waste Money on Pakistan?



Since Pakistan joined the "war on terror", it has received billions of dollars from the United States. When Osama Bin Laden was found here, there were those in Washington who said aid to this country had to stop.

But it is not just Americans questioning the current levels of financial assistance here, many Pakistanis are also debating the wisdom of accepting such large sums of US handouts.

Muzaffar Khakwani, who grows mangoes in the southern part of Punjab province, is a direct recipient of American aid.

In the scorching heat he shows off his trees, heavily laden with green fruit, still a few weeks away from being harvested.

"The US assistance in this area has gone primarily into education of mango farmers like me," Mr Khakwani says. "How to grow better mangoes in terms of quality and yield, how to market our mangoes better, and also into trying to create the conditions to increase exports of our mangoes."

He says the Americans have contributed to the building of a processing facility on his farm.

"I guess the idea is that because southern Punjab has had problems with militancy, if they invest here it will become prosperous and the money will trickle down to the poor so they won't become militants," says Mr Khakwani.

Unwanted aid

Over recent years much of the American money to Pakistan has gone to the army, but about $1.5bn a year has been assigned to civil projects too.

Not far away from Mr Khakwani's farm, is the site of another civil assistance project being funded by the US.

The Americans have invested in the thermal power station, increasing its capacity so it serves thousands more homes.

But in a market in the nearby city of Muzaffargarh some of the intended beneficiaries of the aid told us they did not want it.

"Our country's got so many problems," one man told me. "America is the cause. If they damage our country, or kill our people, we don't accept their money." All around nodded in agreement.

If the aid is a tool to "win hearts and minds," it is not working here.

But the head of the USAID (US Agency for International Development) mission to Pakistan, Andrew Sisson, says the highs and lows of the US-Pakistan relationship should not detract from the long term goals.

"Well, of course, we would like a more favourable Pakistani perception of the US government and our assistance but that's not the main reason we're here," says Mr Sisson.

"We're here to promote development, stability, to help this place become less susceptible to extremist tendencies."

Mr Sisson said America had committed itself to much more investment in sectors that would improve the lives of Pakistanis.

'Hired gun'

But there is another face of American involvement here, its military operations. It includes the US drone missile strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan's tribal areas close to the Afghanistan border.

The opposition politician, Imran Khan, says the drone attacks and the Pakistani army offensives against militants are precisely the things that are fuelling extremism here.

"It's because we're perceived as an American hired gun, we're being paid," Mr Khan says.

"I have never seen such anti-Americanism in Pakistan as now, why? If they were our ally we should be friends. It's because the majority of the people feel that we're being used in someone else's war and we are being destroyed by it."

Imran Khan is leading a vociferous campaign advocating an immediate end to both military co-operation with the US, and to Pakistan's acceptance of American aid.

"Things cannot get any worse. Every day Pakistanis are dying," he says. "So we might as well try another policy where we, as a sovereign country, try and reform rather than rely on aid. Better to start the process now and stop this bloodshed going on in this country."

Though Mr Khan passionately insists it is the right strategy, the task of going it alone in dealing with the estimated tens of thousands of militants here is a daunting one for Pakistan.

The kind of reforms needed to revive an economy that has become dependent on aid are also huge.

Lost opportunities

The head of USAID here, Andrew Sisson, says it would affect many people if the aid programme stopped.

"Millions of Pakistanis, children in particular, but also adults, will lose the opportunity for economic improvement in their lives, as well as better health and education or better services like clean water."

Back at his mango farm, in southern Punjab province, Muzaffar Khakwani told us it would affect him personally if the aid was cut.

"The research stations and the experts will not be available and they have been of great use, and it would have an effect on all the work to build the capacity of the farm."

But even he has reservations about what accepting American aid may be doing to the country.

"It may be holding us back," he says. "Should the aid stopped we would have to find ways to survive, we did in the past. It might be good for us, but only if the Pakistani leaders make the right decisions to get us back on our feet. But that's a big 'if'."




Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Defense says toddler Caylee drowned by accident

Casey Anthony trial: Defense says toddler Caylee drowned by accident

The defense drops a series of bombshells in the Casey Anthony trial, saying the murder defendant was sexually abused by her father and brother and lied to hide 'ugly' family secrets.



The murder trial of a Florida woman accused of killing her two-year-old daughter opened with a series of bombshells on Tuesday as her defense lawyer told the jury in an opening statement that the toddler was not murdered, but had accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool.


Defense Attorney Jose Baez called the death of Caylee Anthony a “horrible tragedy, a common tragedy.”

But he said the young mother, Casey Anthony, panicked, and instead of calling for emergency help, participated with her father, a former police detective, in a coverup.


“Casey should have been stronger,” Mr. Baez said. “She should have called 911.”

Baez said Ms. Anthony’s father, George Anthony, was present as the two discovered Caylee’s lifeless body.


The assertions stunned those observing the high-profile trial in Orlando. Many had wondered on the eve of the trial how the defense would answer prosecution charges that Ms. Anthony had waited a month before contacting police about her missing toddler.

But the accidental drowning assertion was only the beginning of an explosive account offered up by Baez. The defense’s version of events took several darker turns.

The defense lawyer said George Anthony had sexually molested his daughter Casey since she was eight years old, and that Casey’s brother, Lee, had also sexually molested her. He also alluded to an FBI theory that Lee might have fathered Caylee.

No father on birth certificate


No father was designated on the child’s birth certificate, and the family had sought to hide her pregnancy.


“This family must keep its secrets quiet,” the lawyer said.


“This is not a murder case. This is not a manslaughter case. This is a tragic accident that happened to some very disturbed people,” Baez said.

In an increasingly strange twist, Baez also told the jury that George Anthony not only sought to cover up the child’s death, but actively worked to implicate Casey in what he described as Caylee’s staged murder by allegedly placing duct tape over the dead toddler’s face and then positioning the remains in a place where they would likely be discovered.

“All you have to do is follow the duct tape and discover who placed Caylee’s remains,” Baez urged the jurors.

Prosecution's opening statement


That version of events differs sharply from the account offered earlier during the two-hour opening statement of Assistant State Attorney Linda Burdick.


She told the jury that Casey Anthony had engaged in a pattern of lies to family members and police about the whereabouts of her daughter.

The child was last seen alive on June 16, 2008, yet police were not notified that Caylee was missing until a month later. Word that she was missing triggered a nationwide alert and massive search. The toddler’s remains were discovered Dec. 11, 2008, a short distance from her home.

The cause of death is undetermined, but prosecutors charged Casey Anthony with first-degree murder. If convicted she could receive a death sentence.

At one point, Casey Anthony made up a story that a nanny had kidnapped the toddler. There was no nanny. In addition, Casey Anthony told members of her family that she worked at Universal Studios. Police discovered that, also, was a lie.

“In a pattern that is repeated throughout this case when Casey Anthony’s lie can no longer stand – when she can no longer get out of the corner she has painted herself into – what does Casey Anthony do – Casey Anthony comes up with a new, a bigger, a better lie,” Ms. Burdick told the jury.

'Three pieces of duct tape'


Prosecutors suggested to the jury that Casey Anthony had grown tired of the burdens of being a mother. She allegedly used chloroform to subdue the child and then wrapped duct tape over the toddler’s mouth and nose.


“The only evidence of cause of death are three pieces of duct tape covering [Caylee’s] nose and mouth,” Burdick said. “There is no other reason for the placement of multiple pieces of duct tape on this child’s nose and mouth other than the specific intent to end that child’s life.”

The prosecutor concluded her opening statement by referring to a possible motive. “As difficult as it may be for anyone to accept that a mother would intentionally kill her own children, from the evidence you will hear in this case there is no other conclusion to be drawn,” she said.

“No one else benefited from the death of Caylee,” Burdick said. “Caylee’s death allowed Casey Anthony to live the good life – at least for 31 days.”

Defense lawyers offered a different view of the evidence, accusing the police of conducting a selective investigation aimed more at winning a murder conviction against Casey Anthony than revealing the truth of what happened to Caylee.


“Everyone wants to know how in the world can a mother wait 30 days before ever reporting her child missing,” Defense Attorney Baez said. “It is insane, bizarre. Something is just not right about that.”


“The answer,” he said, “is that she was never missing. Caylee Anthony died June 16 in her family’s swimming pool.”

The defense tactic raised a second question. Why, if her death was an accident, did Casey Anthony lie so frequently to her family and to police.

'Ugly secrets will come out'


The answer, according to Baez, is tied up with Casey Anthony’s past as an alleged victim of sexual abuse and molestation by both her father and brother.


“What does a sex abuse victim look like,” Baez asked. “These ugly secrets will come out slowly in this trial.”


After the opening statements, prosecutors called their first witness – Casey Anthony’s father, George.

He denied sexually abusing his daughter and he denied the version of events offered by defense lawyers that he discovered his granddaughter’s body in the swimming pool, later placed duct tape over her mouth and nose, and disposed of the body.


The trial is expected to continue on Wednesday.
Enhanced by Zemanta

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel After Bilateral Meeting



Office of the Press Secretary


Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel After Bilateral Meeting


Oval Office

1:35 P.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, welcome again Prime Minister Netanyahu, who I think has now been here seven times during the course of my presidency. And I want to indicate that the frequency of these meetings is an indication of the extraordinary bonds between our two countries, as is the opportunity for the Prime Minister to address Congress during his visit here. I know that’s an honor that’s reserved for those who have always shown themselves to be a great friend of the United States and is indicative of the friendship between our countries.

We just completed a prolonged and extremely useful conversation touching on a wide range of issues. We discussed, first of all, the changes that are sweeping the region and what has been happening in places like Egypt and Syria and how they affect the interests and security of the United States and Israel, as well as the opportunity for prosperity, growth and development in the Arab world.

We agreed that there is a moment of opportunity that can be seized as a consequence of the Arab Spring, but also acknowledge that there’s significant perils as well, and that it’s going to be important for the United States and Israel to consult closely as we see developments unfold.

I outlined for the Prime Minister some of the issues that I discussed in my speech yesterday -- how important it was going to be for the United States to support political reform, support human rights, support freedom of speech, religious tolerance and economic development, particularly in Egypt, as the largest Arab country, as well as Tunisia, the country that first started this revolutionary movement that’s taking place throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

We also discussed the situation in Syria, which is obviously of acute concern to Israel, given its shared border. And I gave more details to the Prime Minister about the significant steps that we are taking to try to pressure Syria and the Assad regime to reform, including the sanctions that we placed directly on President Assad.

We continue to share our deep concerns about Iran, not only the threat that it poses to Israel but also the threat that it poses to the region and the world if it were to develop a nuclear weapon. We updated our strategy to continue to apply pressure, both through sanctions and our other diplomatic work. And I reiterated my belief that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon.


We also discussed the hypocrisy of Iran suggesting that it somehow supports democratization in the Middle East when, in fact, they first showed the repressive nature of that regime when they responded to the own peaceful protests that took place inside Iran almost two years ago.

Finally, we discussed the issue of a prospective peace between Israelis and Palestinians. And I reiterated and we discussed in depth the principles that I laid out yesterday -- the belief that our ultimate goal has to be a secure Israeli state, a Jewish state, living side by side in peace and security with a contiguous, functioning and effective Palestinian state.


Obviously there are some differences between us in the precise formulations and language, and that’s going to happen between friends. But what we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats, and that Israel’s security will remain paramount in U.S. evaluations of any prospective peace deal.

I said that yesterday in the speech, and I continue to believe it. And I think that it is possible for us to shape a deal that allows Israel to secure itself, not to be vulnerable, but also allows it to resolve what has obviously been a wrenching issue for both peoples for decades now.


I also pointed out, as I said in the speech yesterday, that it is very difficult for Israel to be expected to negotiate in a serious way with a party that refuses to acknowledge its right to exist. And so for that reason I think the Palestinians are going to have to answer some very difficult questions about this agreement that’s been made between Fatah and Hamas. Hamas has been and is an organization that has resorted to terror; that has refused to acknowledge Israel’s rights to exist. It is not a partner for a significant, realistic peace process.


And so, as I said yesterday during the speech, the Palestinians are going to have to explain how they can credibly engage in serious peace negotiations in the absence of observing the Quartet principles that have been put forward previously.

So, overall, I thought this was an extremely constructive discussion. And coming out of this discussion, I once again can reaffirm that the extraordinarily close relationship between the United States and Israel is sound and will continue, and that together, hopefully we are going to be able to work to usher in a new period of peace and prosperity in a region that is going to be going through some very profound transformations in the coming weeks, months and years.

So, Mr. Prime Minister.


PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Mr. President, first I want to thank you and the First Lady for the gracious hospitality that you’ve shown me, my wife, and our entire delegation. We have an enduring bond of friendship between our two countries, and I appreciate the opportunity to have this meeting with you after your important speech yesterday.

We share your hope and your vision for the spread of democracy in the Middle East. I appreciate the fact that you reaffirmed once again now, and in our conversation, and in actual deed the commitment to Israel’s security. We value your efforts to advance the peace process.

This is something that we want to have accomplished. Israel wants peace. I want peace. What we all want is a peace that will be genuine, that will hold, that will endure. And I think that the -- we both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality, and that the only peace that will endure is one that is based on reality, on unshakeable facts.


I think for there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines -- because these lines are indefensible; because they don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.

Remember that, before 1967, Israel was all of nine miles wide. It was half the width of the Washington Beltway. And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars, because the attack on Israel was so attractive.


So we can't go back to those indefensible lines, and we're going to have to have a long-term military presence along the Jordan. I discussed this with the President and I think that we understand that Israel has certain security requirements that will have to come into place in any deal that we make.

The second is -- echoes something the President just said, and that is that Israel cannot negotiate with a Palestinian government that is backed by Hamas. Hamas, as the President said, is a terrorist organization committed to Israel’s destruction. It’s fired thousands of rockets on our cities, on our children. It’s recently fired an anti-tank rocket at a yellow school bus, killing a 16-year-old boy. And Hamas has just attacked you, Mr. President, and the United States for ridding the world of bin Laden.

So Israel obviously cannot be asked to negotiate with a government that is backed by the Palestinian version of al Qaeda.


I think President Abbas has a simple choice. He has to decide if he negotiates or keeps his pact with Hamas, or makes peace with Israel. And I can only express what I said to you just now, that I hope he makes the choice, the right choice, in choosing peace with Israel.

The third reality is that the Palestinian refugee problem will have to be resolved in the context of a Palestinian state, but certainly not in the borders of Israel.

 
The Arab attack in 1948 on Israel resulted in two refugee problems -- Palestinian refugee problem and Jewish refugees, roughly the same number, who were expelled from Arab lands. Now, tiny Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, but the vast Arab world refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Now, 63 years later, the Palestinians come to us and they say to Israel, accept the grandchildren, really, and the great grandchildren of these refugees, thereby wiping out Israel’s future as a Jewish state.

So it’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen. And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it’s not going to happen. The Palestinian refugee problem has to be resolved. It can be resolved, and it will be resolved if the Palestinians choose to do so in a Palestinian state. So that's a real possibility. But it’s not going to be resolved within the Jewish state.


The President and I discussed all these issues and I think we may have differences here and there, but I think there’s an overall direction that we wish to work together to pursue a real, genuine peace between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors; a peace that is defensible.

Mr. President, you're the -- you're the leader of a great people, the American people. And I'm the leader of a much smaller people, the --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: A great people.


PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: It’s a great people, too. It’s the ancient nation of Israel. And, you know, we've been around for almost 4,000 years. We've experienced struggle and suffering like no other people. We've gone through expulsions and pogroms and massacres and the murder of millions. But I can say that even at the dearth of -- even at the nadir of the valley of death, we never lost hope and we never lost our dream of reestablishing a sovereign state in our ancient homeland, the land of Israel.

And now it falls on my shoulders as the Prime Minister of Israel, at a time of extraordinary instability and uncertainty in the Middle East, to work with you to fashion a peace that will ensure Israel’s security and will not jeopardize its survival. I take this responsibility with pride but with great humility, because, as I told you in our conversation, we don't have a lot of margin for error. And because, Mr. President, history will not give the Jewish people another chance.

So in the coming days and weeks and months, I intend to work with you to seek a peace that will address our security concerns, seek a genuine recognition that we wish from our Palestinian neighbors to give a better future for Israel and for the entire region.


And I thank you for the opportunity to exchange our views and to work together for this common end. Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you.

END 1:51 P.M. EDT





    Enhanced by Zemanta